CAFO Implementation Guidance under the CWA

— Nick Welding, UNL Law '11

The recent release of the EPA’s “Implementation Guidance on CAFO Regulations”is likely to add to the conflict between the EPA, environmental groups, and CAFO owners/operators regarding proper implementation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The guidance, released on May 28th, is the product of a settlement agreement between the EPA and Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Waterkeeper Alliance. According to the settlement, the guidance is to assist permitting authorities with implementation of the NPDES permit regulations and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for CAFOs. The released guidance identifies certain factors and circumstances that the EPA believes will lead to a “discharge into waters of the United States,” which, in turn, will trigger the NPDES permit requirement. However, none of the standards or levels provided by the guidance are dispositive. Overall, the guidance seems to further obscure the already muddy waters surrounding exactly when a CAFO must obtain a NPDES permit and whether the EPA has authority to regulate CAFO’s under the Clean Water Act absent an actual “discharge”.

The EPA’s first attempt to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits absent an actual “discharge” was in 2003. Under the 2003 regulations, any CAFO that was found to have the “potential to discharge” was required to obtain a permit, whether or not an actual discharge occurred. Opponents of the 2003 rule successfully thwarted this attempt in Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA, where the 2nd Circuit invalidated several parts of the rule, including the “potential to discharge” permit requirement. The 2nd Circuit held that the EPA lacked statutory authority to require a NPDES permit when a “discharge” has not occurred. In direct response to Waterkeeper, the EPA promulgated a revised rule in 2008. In the 2008 rule, the EPA again attempted to require CAFO’s to obtain a NPDES permit absent an actual discharge. Under the 2008 rule, a CAFO must obtain a NPDES permit if it is found to “propose to discharge.” The rule calls for an objective assessment by a CAFO owner/operator to determine if the operation is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained such that a discharge will occur.

Following the release of the 2008 regulation, environmental groups sued the EPA and obtained the EPA’s agreement to publish the Implementation Guidance at issue. According to the settlement, the guidance is to assist permitting authorities by “specifying the kinds of operations and factual circumstances that EPA anticipates may trigger the duty to apply for permits as discharging or proposing to discharge.” CAFO owners/operators/permitting authorities are to consider these factors and circumstances when determining if a particular operation “proposes to discharge” and is subject to NPDES permit requirements. The EPA acknowledges in the new guidance that no one factor is determinative as to whether a permit is required. Rather, the factors are to be considered collectively.

The new guidance seeks to supplement the 2008 regulations by calling for an assessment of climatic, hydrologic, and topographic factors in “relevant areas of consideration” for all CAFO’s, regardless of the type of on-site livestock. These areas include the animal confinement, waste storage and handling, mortality management, and land application areas. These areas are considered potential sources of pollution that are related to the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a CAFO. The guidance then identifies livestock-specific factors that should be considered for dairy, beef cattle, swine, and poultry CAFO’s.

Since the guidance is based off of factors and circumstances other than an actual discharge into waters of the U.S., it seems as though the EPA is attempting to create a regulatory presumption that a CAFO which does not satisfy the identified appropriate factors and circumstances will eventually (and unlawfully, unless permitted to do so) discharge into waters of the U.S. Even before its release, some environmentalists believed that the EPA would ground its authority to establish such a presumption on a footnote found in Waterkeeper. In the footnote, the 2nd Circuit appears to hint that the EPA can create a presumption by stating, “we need not consider whether the record here supports the EPA's determination that Large CAFOs may reasonably be presumed to be such potential dischargers... In our view, the EPA has marshaled evidence suggesting that such a prophylactic measure may be necessary to effectively regulate water pollution from Large CAFOs, given that Large CAFOs are important contributors to water pollution and that they have, historically at least, improperly tried to circumvent the permitting process.”

Even if the EPA does have the authority establish a regulatory presumption and to require CAFO’s to obtain NPDES permits absent an actual discharge, the question remains how much weight it should be given. The guidance states that it is not legally enforceable and does not confer any legal rights or impose any legal obligations on any CAFO operation. The EPA suggests that an objective assessment will provide permitting authorities with a common basis for determining if the CAFO is required to obtain a permit. Nevertheless, the EPA asserts in pending litigation in the 5th Circuit (National Pork Producers Council, et al. v. EPA, et al) that it has the authority under Chemical Manufacturers Association v. DOT (D.C. Circuit) to establish appropriate regulatory presumptions and that courts have and will give deference to these presumptions.

When the guidance hits the ground and is put into use by permitting authorities, it will be interesting to see how a combination of factors will lead to a final determination of whether a permit is required. A substantial amount of disagreement is likely when state agencies, which are responsible for issuing NPDES permits in accordance with the CWA, base permit requirements off of an “objective assessment” performed by the CAFO owner/operator — an objective assessment that consists of an almost endless number of factors, some of which are not within the control of the CAFO owner/operator. It is reasonable to surmise that avoiding such an unpredictable and potentially varied basis for determining permit requirements was in the mind of the 5th Circuit when it limited EPA authority to actual discharges in Waterkeeper.

At the end of the day, one has to question the EPA‘s attempt to sidestep Waterkeeper and wonder how the costly new requirements will impact CAFO’s and production agriculture as a whole. Of course protecting water quality is crucial and CAFO’s have traditionally been able to avoid CWA coverage, but at what point does the CAFO regulation not fit within the intent of the CWA and instead call for an effort that addresses both agricultural and environmental interests?

Inflated Claims of Antibiotic 'Over-use'

Political writer Gregg Easterbrook once remarked, "Torture the numbers long enough and they will eventually confess to anything." So is the case with the statistics thrown around regarding how U.S. farmers "over-use" antibiotics.

Although the FDA strictly regulates the type, form and dosage of antibiotics farmers can and cannot use in their animals, the reality is nobody knows exactly how much is eventually consumed at the farm and veterinary clinic. So the question is: Can your customers trust the numbers? A LITTLE PERSPECTIVE
The statistics most typically cited are based on interpretations and misinterpretations of a 2001 report called "Hogging It: Estimates of Antibiotic Abuse in Livestock." Commissioned by Boston's Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), an advocacy group critical of numerous social issues including carbon emissions, SUVs, biotech and the war in Iraq, it claimed farmers use an "enormous" 24.6 million pounds of antibiotics yearly for “non-therapeutic” purposes, or 70 percent of all U.S. antibiotics. However:

• The study's own authors concede there's no way to know which farms do and don’t use antibiotics, how long they use them, and which animals they choose to medicate. So they guessed. For cattle and hogs, they based their guess on a single USDA survey in each market which asked just a handful of questions about antibiotic use among dozens of others. Lacking a similar survey in poultry, UCS simply assumed all farms use them, based on a single-sentence opinion plucked from a 253-page National Research Council review of the issue. UCS then simply multiplied its guesses by the total number of animals and birds sent to market during the year.
• To convert the 24.6 million pound guess into a percentage, the UCS authors likewise guessed at the total number of human prescriptions, based on — for inpatients — a National Center for Health Statistics survey and — for outpatients — the kind of market survey they dismiss as unreliable when done by animal-drug makers. They then estimated a "most likely" antibiotic poundage total by assuming what doctors ordered to fill those prescriptions. It "grossly underestimates the amount of hospital prescribing," according to Tamar Barlam, MD, former antibiotic resistance project director for the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
• To support its belief antibiotics are "misused" and "nonessential," UCS invented a definition for "non-therapeutic" to count uses that keep animals from getting sick — a definition not supported by FDA. In the decade since the report, the phantom definition has suffered even further rendition creep, to the point it's now shorthanded to accounts like the Organic Trade Associations openly false accusation that "...70 percent of all antibiotics made in the United States are used to fatten up livestock."
• The UCS report and those who use it employ some statistical sleight of hand to further inflate the implied risk that farm antibiotic consumption might be contributing to human drug failures. Not every type of antibiotic they stuff into their calculations is relevant to the resistance debate. Several antimicrobials — those known as ionophores, bambermycins, carbadox, tiamulin and organic arsenicals — are never used in humans. So, their use in farm animals poses no risk of causing human antimicrobials to fail. Subtract UCS's own estimates for how much of those antibimicrobials are used from the inflated statistics, and the oft-repeated 70 percent figure immediately falls to only 37 percent.
• The 70 percent figure is obese with other paunchy inflations, including claiming poultry farmers use 1.8 million pounds of two antibiotics which poultry veterinarians agree are rarely if ever used, and counting nearly 22 tons of one antibiotic in pig farms that has never even been sold in the United States.

EPA Consideration Of Strict Coarse Particle Standard Sparks Industry Fear

EPA's latest policy assessment for its ongoing review of the agency's particulate matter (PM) ambient air standards includes a first-time proposed range of limits for a stricter coarse PM (PM10) standard, sparking fear from the mining and agriculture industries -- large sources of PM10 emissions -- that the standard would be impossible to meet.

In its second external review draft of the policy assessment for the PM national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) review, EPA floats the possibility of a 24-hour NAAQS for PM10 in the range of 65 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and 85 ug/m3 -- much lower than the existing 150 ug/m3 standard.

However, EPA is also considering a new approach to setting the standard that would allow more exceedances of the ug/m3 limit before the agency deems an area out of attainment with the NAAQS. Environmentalists caution that this approach to implementing the standard makes it less stringent than it first appears.

The agency also leaves the door open to retaining the existing PM10 standard, depending on whether EPA opts not to take into account new data showing harmful effects on human health from PM10 exposure.

The policy assessment released July 8 is designed to “bridge the gap” between highly technical risk assessments and decisions to be taken by the agency on whether to revise the NAAQS, EPA says. The agency will take comment until Aug. 16 from its Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public on the policy paper, which offers proposed ranges for a NAAQS revision unlike earlier science-focused risk and exposure assessments.

EPA staff in the policy assessment cautions that there is considerable uncertainty associated with the science behind course PM risks. For example, the body of experimental human inhalation studies is relatively sparse, monitoring for course PM is less widespread than that for fine PM (PM2.5), and “very little information is available to inform weight of evidence conclusions for endpoints associated with long-term exposures.”

Despite the uncertainty, EPA staff recommends changing the PM10 standard, but cautions that “standard levels around the upper end of this range are most strongly supported by the evidence.”

The existing form of the standard permits only one exceedance of the NAAQS level in a three-year period. In the policy paper, EPA says that if it tightens the standard within its 65-85 ug/m3 range, it could switch to a so-called 98th percentile form, which would allow 21 exceedances over three years. While activists endorse a stricter PM10 standard, they are raising early concerns about the change in form.

A source with the American Lung Association (ALA) says that a new ambient PM10 standard of 85 ug/m3 using the revised form is “not really that much of a reduction” in air pollution. A NAAQS set at the lower end of the range, however, would be significantly more stringent than the existing limit.

Even with a 65 ug/m3 limit ALA would probably take issue with the proposed form. “We have had problems, historically, with the 98th percentile,” as this allows too many spikes in pollution, the source says, adding that this will likely be reflected in ALA's upcoming comments on the policy paper.

To implement the standard, states would have to craft state implementation plans (SIPs) -- air quality blueprints that detail the emission controls they will impose on sources under their regulatory control in order to cut PM10 emissions and attain the standard. Mining and agricultural operations in rural areas tend to have high levels of PM10 emissions and would therefore be likely targets for new controls in SIPs under a stricter NAAQS.

Agriculture, Mining Industry Objections

Despite environmentalists' doubts that a tighter standard would be sufficiently stringent if EPA changes the form, farming and mining groups are already alarmed at the prospect of a tougher standard in the proposed range -- regardless of the form that EPA selects. “I think that agricultural operations . . . would have a very difficult time achieving a standard set that low,” says a National Cattlemen's Beef Association source.

Farming and ranching operations can produce significant amounts of dust that contribute to PM10 formation, particularly in the West. But the source says there may be no options for cutting dust from the sector to meet a stricter standard, because farmers are already employing best management practices to reduce dust. The source says it is unclear what technology options are available to curb dust in inherently dusty regions.

Similarly, a National Mining Association (NMA) source says that the mining industry is a large source of PM10 emissions but it would be difficult to meet a stricter PM10 standard because industry is already using best management practices for controlling those emissions. If EPA tightens the PM10 standard, “we are not sure there is anything to be done about it,” the source says, adding that a standard at the stricter end of the proposed range would be a “real regulatory stretch,” with few remedies available from the industry to meet the standard.

The NMA source also highlights apparent doubts EPA staff expresses in the policy assessment over uncertainties in the science on PM10's harmful effects, saying “EPA says it would be justified in leaving the standard unchanged” if policymakers feel those uncertainties are sufficiently serious.

The ALA source, however, rejects the industry arguments and says a lack of emission control technology should not be the driver behind a NAAQS revision. The Clean Air Act requires that NAAQS be set based only on public health criteria, and the act has always been a “technology forcing” law that drives innovation, the source says.

Tighter PM2.5 Standard

The draft policy paper also reiterates earlier EPA staff recommendations to tighten the existing annual PM2.5 standard of 15 ug/m3 to a range of 11-13 ug/m3, and either retain the existing 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 ug/m3 or revise it down to a stricter level of 30 ug/m3. PM2.5 is widely considered to present the greater public health risk, and is a more urban problem than PM10, which is predominantly an issue in rural areas.

EPA staff further recommend a tightening of the secondary [welfare-based] NAAQS for PM2.5. At present, there are secondary standards for PM set at the same levels as the primary NAAQS, but the policy assessment treats criteria for setting secondary NAAQS related to visibility separately from criteria not based on visibility.

“Staff concludes that the currently available information clearly calls into question the adequacy of the current standards,” the document says, “and that consideration should be given to establishing a new indicator based on speciated PM2.5 mass and relative humidity to calculate PM2.5 light extinction.”

EPA says that the new PM2.5 standard should use a 1-hour averaging time, considering only daylight hours with relative humidity no higher than 90 percent, and a level of PM2.5 light extinction in the range of 191 to 64 inverse megameters (Mm-1.) Light extinction is this context is PM's ability to impair visibility by scattering and absorbing light waves.

CASAC has previously said that using light extinction rather than traditional methods could be technically difficult to achieve. For example, many existing technologies for measuring light extinction are inadequate for the indicator EPA wants to use because they use the wrong wavelength of light.

On secondary effects not related to visibility effects, the policy assessment says “staff concludes that the currently available information supports retaining control of both fine and coarse particles to address PM-related effects on ecosystems and materials damage and soiling, but that there [is] insufficient information to assess the adequacy of protection afforded by the current standards.”

Further, EPA concludes that there is currently not enough information available for a NAAQS to be based on the contribution to climate change of PM or its constituents. The climate effects of PM are a new area of inquiry for the agency, but the state of the current science does not yet support regulatory action despite EPA's clear conviction, expressed in the policy assessment and earlier scientific documents, that PM does have a direct impact.

PM constituents such as black carbon, organic carbon, sulfates and nitrates all have an effect on climate, EPA acknowledges, although the relationships between these pollutants and atmospheric warming and cooling are complex and not well understood. “The current state of the science of climate alterations attributed to PM is in flux as a result of continually updated information,” the policy assessment states.

EPA to Seek Remand to Revise Livestock Emissions Reporting Exemption

I was invited to join this blog by James Chen and am excited to be a part of this. Some of you know me but to just give a little of my background. I grew up on a 1,000 acre diversified livestock farm (dairy cows, hogs and chickens) in Northern Indiana. I obtained B.S. degrees in Agronomy and Animal Science and an M.S. in International Agriculture with an emphasis in Ag. Econ. I attended the University of Arkansas Law School. Since law school I have worked as an Extension Specialist for the University of Missouri and then as commodity director for Indiana Farm Bureau. I then spent 7 years as the livestock policy specialist for the American Farm Bureau. I have been General Counsel to Rose Acre Farms for the past five years. Rose Acre Farms is the largest family owned and operated layer operation in the US. We have approximately 25 million laying chickens in 6 (soon to be 7) states. My main interests are in environmental ag law and regualtions and ag anti-trust and competition.

EPA will ask a federal appeals court to remand its litigated rule exempting concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) from reporting most hazardous
air emissions under Superfund and right-to-know laws so it can revise the rule, but environmentalists say talks on the issue have failed and they are
urging the court to allow their suit to move forward.

EPA in a July 7 filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit says that the agency intends to seek a voluntary remand of its 2008 CAFO emissions reporting rule that created the exemptions from reporting requirements. The agency says it wants the remand so that it can reconsider the rule, including the various complaints raised by environmentalists and industry groups that filed suit over the CAFO reporting exemptions.

The D.C. Circuit in 2009 agreed to a request from all parties to hold the case in abeyance pending settlement talks. "If this matter is remanded to EPA for further administrative consideration, there will be nothing before this Court for briefing," EPA says.

EPA's filing is in response to a June 28 filing from environmentalists in the suit, Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, in which they say that the settlement talks have failed and the lawsuit should proceed. The environmental groups argue that the agency has had plenty of time to retract the rule and urge the court to reopen the case, according to the filing. "Briefing should proceed because EPA cannot address the deficiencies of the final rule by voluntarily tinkering with the terms of the reporting exemptions."

EPA's rule exempted all CAFOs from reporting their hazardous air emissions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, and exempted
all but the largest CAFOs from reporting emissions under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act. Environmentalists, including Waterkeeper Alliance,
Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, and the Environmental Integrity
Project, filed suit over the rule arguing any exemption from reporting under the laws is illegal. The groups argue that the exemptions violate the plain language of the laws and that EPA
lacks the authority to carve out the exemptions for the livestock industry. Even though EPA is finalizing data from a study of CAFO emissions, the groups say there is no reason to delay revising the rule until the study is final because the groups say EPA acknowledged the rule was based on the likelihood of emergency personnel responding to reports, not the amount of emissions or health risks.

The industry group National Pork Producers Council sued arguing CAFOs should be exempt from all reporting under both laws. The National Chicken Council, National Turkey Federation, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association intervened on behalf of EPA.

Recent Publication

I've recently published an article on rural development, nature-based entrepreneurs, and common-interest communities. It is available for free at http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/2/7/2320/

Update: USDA and Shirley Sherrod

The NBC Nightly News featured a story this evening on Shirley Sherrod and the reports of her "racist" remarks. It confirmed the post I did this morning, Politics and Race in Agriculture. The full and unedited tape of her comments revealed that she told the meeting of the NAACP the same story I heard her tell last year - a story of how black and white need to come together to help each other. The white farmer and his wife referenced in the story even came forward to voice their support. The NAACP, who initially condemned her remarks, admitted that they had been "snookered" by the false news report.

If good people are forced to resign whenever an unscrupulous blogger or TV news station presents a false story about them, it only serves to give power to those who make up these lies.

I am hoping that Secretary Vilsack will do the honorable thing and admit that a mistake was made. Maybe then, this story can serve as a platform for an honest discussion of the lies making their way through the media these days.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Federal Preemption, Nonambulatory Cows and "Hogwash"

It is not this editor’s intent in this post to indicate her feelings on agricultural animal husbandry practices. In contrast the focus here centers on National Meat Association v. Brown, 2010 WL 1225477 (C.A. 9 Cal.) (2010), a case that portends of possible forthcoming developments with potential impact for the nation’s meat processors, animal rights activists, and preemption scholars grounded in agriculture law. Ultimately the case proves intriguing for students of Agricultural Law as to the nature of federal/state relationships, the diversity of plaintiffs and defendants involved with further contemplations of feeding the nation and the legal mechanisms employed to ensure food safety.

The facts reveal that on January 30, 2008, The Humane Society released a video depicting images of nonambulatory cows and triggered the largest beef recall in the United States. The videos revealed cows that had been kicked, electrocuted, dragged with chains and rammed with forklifts at California's Westland/Hallmark slaughterhouse. The reason for such tactics was to enable the cows to stand or walk. Other methods were employed but compounding the issue including warnings from public health officials that downed cattle might impact consumers’ health. In response California promulgated a state law that banned the slaughter of nonambulatory animals.

Before implementation of the statute the National Meat Association (“NMA”) comprising a trade association that represented packers and processors of swine livestock and pork production filed an action in federal district court seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. NMA asserted that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”) preempted California law. The party defendants at the appellate level included a range of animal rights groups including The Humane Society, Farm Sanctuary, Humane Farming Association, and the Animal Legal Defense Fund. The case is challenging and could prove of value to the study of Agricultural Law for several reasons. I am thus tempted to include it in my Agricultural Law Seminar. Any thoughts to the contrary of course would be greatly appreciated.

First, NMA established that the FMIA “did not expressly preempt California statute banning slaughter of nonambulatory animals.” The rationale stemmed in part from the interpretation that the “state ban did not require any additional or different inspections than did federal law.” Second, the NMA nonetheless established the substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the claim that the inhumane treatment ban was expressly preempted. This resulted from the distinctions between federal law’s broader measures and use of additional equipment in treating downer animals as opposed to the California statute ban on such practices. At this juncture could NMA rest on its laurels?

To its detriment NMA did not succeed on the merits of its plea because it also failed to demonstrate a critical element in their request for an injunction— irreparable harm. Undermining its plea moreover highlights NMA failing to show in the alternative that the “public interest and balance of hardship favored injunctive relief.” The appellate court therefore vacated the lower court’s preliminary injunction ruling. So far and at this moment of time good news for the party defendants with a few lessons for agricultural law students.

At times law students default to federal law without regard to its relationship to state law. For agricultural law students the case illustrates the nature of federal state hierarchies with the complexities of states attempting to regulate food production. For example, the appellate court in its rationale against the reasoning that states were barred from adding their own regulatory structures declared: . . . .“Hogwash.”

This language wanders into the realm of legal realism adding to the jurisprudence of agricultural law. How? The appellate court’s contextual framework tells us that states “aren’t limited to excluding animals from slaughter on a species-wide basis. What if a state wanted to ban the slaughter of a specific breed of pig not the entire species? Or to allow wild dogs and horses to be slaughter but not domesticated companions?. . . .” Other examples are provided but here the court reasons: “Regulating what kinds of animals may be slaughtered calls for a host of practical, moral and public health judgments that go far beyond those made in the FMIA.” In other words, “. . . .these are the kinds of judgments reserved to the states and nothing in the FMIA requires states to make them on a species-wide basis or not at all. Federal law regulates the meat inspection process; states are free to decide which animals may be turned into meat.”

The case underscores further reasons as to whether to include it in the study of agricultural law but its value reaches into the entangled nature of preliminary injunctive relief with appellate court rulings. The rules in force underscore how equitable constraints can sustain a law. The decision and its contextual framework thus bring to mind how law shapes the contours of agricultural practices. The decision speaks volumes of the future and unknown possibilities for all parties as to whether or not irreparable harm will ultimately be shown at some point in the future. While I am sure there are more theoretical legal lessons one more emerges. Specifically and whether animal rights activists will be able to participate and ultimately influence the nation’s food production systems.

Politics and Race in Agriculture

About a year ago, I heard a moving speech about bringing down racial barriers, and the point of the speech was that family farmers with financial problems, struggling to keep pace with large commercial agriculture - white, black, hispanic, native american, hmong, male and female - needed to look past race, past gender and work together.

The speech talked honestly about the barriers we all confront, and the speaker spoke of her own struggles to put aside her anger over discrimination. She told a story of her experience over 25 years ago in a very different southwest Georgia. An African American farmer herself, she and her family had experienced horrific discrimination at the hands of white neighbors and USDA officials. Serving as a farm advocate during the farm financial crisis of the 1980's, she was called upon to help a white farmer who she knew felt superior to her. She shared her internal struggle and the path that she took to help him and to reconcile her feelings. The story ended with her current friendship with the farmer and his family, and it merged into an uplifting story of healing and the changing times of race relations in this country.

Telling this story again, this time to an audience that included someone with a tape recorder and an apparent connection to a tea party blogger cost this person, Shirley Sherrod, her position as USDA's Georgia State Director of Rural Development.

Please take a moment to read the CBS news story announcing her resignation.

The New Mandatory EU Organic Label

As of July 1, new regulations came into effect that require the use of the European organic logo on pre-packaged organic food and beverage products. The European Commission states that the new logo is designed to provide a consumer with “complete confidence” that the goods they purchase are produced in line with EU organic farming regulations.

The logo is made up of 12 stars in the shape of a leaf. According to FOODnavigator.com

[w]here used, the logo must be accompanied by an indication of the place where the agricultural raw materials were farmed, stating that raw materials originate from 'EU Agriculture', 'non-EU Agriculture' or 'EU/non-EU Agriculture'. If all raw materials have been farmed in only one country, the name of this specific country, in or outside the EU, can be indicated instead. National, region, or private labels will be allowed to appear on packaging alongside the common EU logo. Under the EU’s new regulations, products can only be labelled as organic if:

• At least 95 per cent of the product's ingredients of agricultural origin have been organically produced;
• The product complies with the rules of the official inspection scheme;
• The product has come directly from the producer or preparer in a sealed package;
• The product bears the name of the producer, the preparer or vendor and the name or code of the inspection body
• The product does not contain GMOs

The new EU rules also set out conditions for organic aquaculture production of fish, shellfish and seaweed. These specify that biodiversity should be respected, and do not allow the use of induced spawning by artificial hormones.